Benjamin Cole
-
Posts
6,600 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Benjamin Cole
-
-
3 hours ago, Christian Toussay said:
...I totally agree with what Tom Gram wrote: AI could be a very efficient tool in a case where the morass of details and disinformation is the main obstacle for the truth. A powerful, AI assisted search engine would be a massive improvement...
CT-
Maybe, but what I do not understand about "AI" is that it can fabricate realities or "hallucinate."
"Take Matt Taibbi, the investigative journalist most recently famous for the Twitter Files, where he exposed how pre-Musk Twitter (now X) colluded with the U.S. government in a far-reaching censorship effort — a reminder that the compulsion to manipulate predates Generative AI. Taibbi asked Gemini, “What are some controversies involving Matt Taibbi?” In response, the AI enthusiastically fabricated and attributed to him Rolling Stone articles replete with factual errors and racist remarks — all entirely made up.
Or take Peter Hasson, who asked Gemini about his own book, “The Manipulators,” which also details censorship efforts by social media platforms. Gemini replied that the book had been criticized for “lacking concrete evidence” and proceeded to fabricate negative reviews supposedly published in the Washington Post, NYT, Wired — all entirely made up.
Both authors contacted Google asking, essentially, ‘what the heck?’ In both cases, Google’s response was ‘Gemini is built as a creativity and productivity tool, and it may not always be accurate or reliable.’"
---30---
There is enough hallucinating already in the JFKA community!
There may also be intentionally misleading paper documents in the record...but how can anyone, including AI, know if those documents are "real" or not? When JFK Records documents are snuff-jobbed by government...how can AI know what is in those documents?
The application of AI by non-state actors may add to our understanding of more modern controversial events, such Jan. 6.
I hope something comes out of AI and the JFKA...but I wonder.
-
10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
The Charles Harrelson tramp identification claim has been a red herring, but other things about Harrelson may not be.
It is not in reasonable dispute that Harrelson sr was a killer for hire and associated with/part of the Dixie Mafia, killers for hire. And the Dixie Mafia had working relationships with Marcello of New Orleans, who controlled organized crime in Dallas.
Then there is the confession (later retracted) from Harrelson himself re involvement in the JFK assassination, and separately, credible later multiple reports that Marcello confessed, which are blithely blown off as Marcello’s early stage senility doing that, nothing to see there (but the FBI to this day will not release its Marcello tapes for independent review, despite the JFK records act). That is after Congress’s investigation of the JFK assassination directly named Marcello along with Trafficante as one of its leading suspects, in the absence of and before the reports that Marcello confessed to exactly what Congress suspected of him and which the FBI refused to investigate despite HSCA’s request that Marcello be further investigated by the Justice Department for the JFK assassination as HSCA was closed down and its funding ended.
And if Marcello did have a role in arranging for the JFK killing as he in his later years was telling people he did, the way it would be done would be via his connections in Dallas with contacts inside the police dept (Ruby), and maybe in the way Marcello is believed to have been behind the killing of that judge for whose killing Harrelson sr was convicted … by outsourcing a contract hit to those in Texas with the demonstrated expertise and ability to do it, Dixie Mafia killers.
There are separate theories of Trafficante sending anti-Castro Cubans, Escalante’s named persons, John Martino known people. So if that is true there is no need for supposition of a separate Dixie Mafia Texas separate connection (unless Marcello-Trafficante were hiring more than one contract hit in the hope one would succeed).
Yet unless the specific gunmen and who hired them etc are conclusively determined, which is not the case in the view of 98% of researchers who, along with privately a majority of the seven-member Warren Commission themselves and President Johnson, disbelieved their own WC unanimous finding of an Oswald-alone explanation … all credible possibilities should be considered open to evidence-grounded investigation UNLESS the case is conclusively solved (meaning specifics with names, dates, and logistics), which by wide agreement it is NOT.
But back to Harrelson sr.
In Peterson and Zachary, The Lone Star Speaks (2020), 422-425, the authors report, newly and from their own interview contacts in Big Spring, Texas, on a confession to his friends of serial professional killer George McCann in 1970 shortly before McCann met his own violent death on Sept 30, 1970—this is the same George McGann who was Beverly Oliver’s husband—to having been a gunman in Dealey Plaza in the JFK assassination, hired for a high price by the Dixie Mafia, and McGann’s associates who heard it at the time believed him.
“McGann’s friends knew that he (McGann) and Harrelson were well acquainted” (p. 424).
“McGann also shared with them that some other people they knew had also been in Dallas that day, namely Charles Harrelson and Pete Kay. Both of these names were familiar to his pool-playing companions. They had seen them with McGann on several occasions, and had even met them in Huntsville” (p. 422).
After so many false confessions of Grassy Knoll shooters there must be high bars of skepticism toward any late hearsay claim of this nature. Maybe someone was pulling someone’s leg. Maybe McGann was spinning a tall tale of his own to his friends as a joke. Who knows.
But in all the discussions of Charles Harrelson I think this detail of his friend and associate McGann’s claimed confession to direct participation in the JFK assassination, and hearsay placing of Harrelson in Dallas the day of the assassination, has been largely under the radar, unknown altogether until Peterson and Zachry’s publication in 2020, and has received little notice since then.
It is the kind of thing the US Congress—HSCA—urged be investigated in 1979 (Marcello’s circles), which was never done at the time when such investigation could have been done.
When the reports emerged that an actual direct confession of arranging the JFK assassination from the man, Marcello, himself, from an FBI informant believed credible, had unexpectedly emerged in the course of a surveillance on a different charge, the FBI responded not by investigating it but by closing down its formally-still-open inactive investigation of the JFK assassination altogether on the grounds that all of FBI’s prior lack of investigation of Marcello had not turned up anything, so logically the new report of a direct confession was not believable, therefore it was time to NOW close the case for good.
I believe Simpich and Schnapf, attorneys, have been seeking via filing legal motions to compel release of FBI’s Marcello tapes and information, unfortunately, so far as I understand, without success. Thanks to them for trying though.
GD-
I wonder if the Marcello tapes are degrading. My understanding is that old-fashioned vinyl tapes start to degrade, and after just a few decades. Why does the Biden Administration keep such 60-year-old tapes under lock-and-key?
I wonder if the Mob did the JFKA. And if they did it, if they had their own motives but were also green-lighted and were a cat's paw for someone else.
As you say, any researcher can (usually with florid conviction and adamantly) connect the JFKA dots to a Marcello, or the CIA, or the Mormon Mafia, or Russians, Israelis, LBJ, WASP-globalists and so on.
-
20 hours ago, Joel D. Gruhn said:
That's right. O'Donnell believed shots, or at least audible gunshot sounds, had been fired from the GK.
Beyond dispute, many earwitnesses placed audible gunshots as coming from the GK.
In addition, many witnesses (including law enforcement officers and veterans) smelled gunsmoke in DP, in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA.
Others placed gunshots as coming from the TSBD.
Of course, you can have audible gunshots coming from both locations, thus creating confusion. There may have been other gunshots, from weapons using silencers.
-----------
I have read that the primary concern of a sniper is exfiltration after firing. The GK is very exposed to DP.
Wouldn't an experienced planner/sniper want to have an accomplice plant a few squibs on the GN to make smoke and sound, to distract the crowd? There is evidence that the CIA used squibs in Saigon to redirect attention during Buddhist protests.
Wouldn't an experienced planner/sniper want to use the advantages of height and concealment offered by the buildings behind the limousine? We do have evidence of James Tague's injury and testimony.
What evidence do we have for assuming that the sounds and smells from the GN came from a firearm?
Joel G
JDG--Exactly! IMHO, you have struck paydirt.
I ginned this up a few years back. I might improve on it a bit, but by and large, still holds water.
-
1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:
As someone who had their area of study renamed in the Great Renaming around the turn of the millennium from the name the general population didn't understand, Operations Research Analyst, to a name that apparently refers to some guys and gals in the back of a pharmacy, Prescriptive Analytics Engineer by the 'Data Scientists', I find it interesting to see algorithms that existed before being labelled AI.
For example, the facial recognition algorithms were well-known decades ago before AI was in the news: I remember laughing at Polly Perrett's character on NCIS recognising a suspect by searching YouTube videos in maybe 15 minutes.
Anyway, I've seen AI go from simple rule based systems, to providing solutions to complex planning problems in Prolog (how to re-assign airliners to gates when the schedule has been disrupted by weather cancellations and re-routings), to how to predict the next set of words given previous sets of words.
IMO - Large Language Models (AI now) are programs that have implemented memorization which isn't Intelligence. The Prolog example is closer to real intelligence. But just my opinion.
That said, I think the applications that have been discussed would be very interesting, just don't know if I would label them AI.
BF--
I do not have your background, but I did take a couple computer science classes back in the day, something about COBOL or BASIC, and there were still fortran cards on campus. Yes, fortran cards.
Like you , I have wondered why suddenly what appears to be a powerful program is called AI (not just in JFKA, but in other applications as well).
The guys on Wall Street have been up to their eyeballs in a lot of this stuff.
One thing that puzzles me is why LLMs at times fabricate or hallucinate.
Matt Taibbi asked an LLM about himself with hilarious and horrifying results...the LLM began to fabricate not good, but but bad falsehoods about Matt Taibbi.
If you have not seen that article, i will post it here.
-
2 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:
There are so many photos of Rip Robertson, Bill Shelley and many other nefarious characters from different time periods that a Facial Recognition lab could use to compare I think this would be an easy analysis.
Oh, I agree.
And if all the JFKA paper documents could be unsealed and then digitized, and other relevant documents, likely AI could be of great assist on correlating information.
Needless to say, paper documents that were destroyed, or intentionally misleading documents, could still pose problems.
It is an interesting topic.
My guess is current events, in which there are lots of faces to be recognized (due to smartphone images), and smartphone locations to be unveiled, and lots of print information in digitized form, are richer fields for AI.
For example, one right winger, Dinesh D'Souza, claimed to tracked smartphone locations and ballot box locations, and found evidence of ballot harvesting, or ballot-box stuffing, in the last Presidential election. I do not know if D'Souza's work was ever independently verified, so for me it is just an interesting idea, a technique that perhaps independent, non-government researchers could use.
One problem is, this all costs money.
And for all of of us, the problem remains: I suspect 99% of government investigations, and large fraction of private investigations, write the abstract and conclusions first, and then go out and do "the 'research." AI or not.
-
9 hours ago, Tom Gram said:
Another thing I just thought of that could be interesting is you could train an image classification model on thousands of skull photos, autopsy photos, etc. and try to get it to orient the mystery photo. The accuracy would be totally dependent on the quality of your training data, and I’m not sure how you’d collect all that cause you’d probably need a ton of different angles, zoom lengths, etc. but in theory it should be possible.
Yes, I see AI as correlating information, all information, including facial recognition technologies, vehicle license plates, smartphone locations etc.
As I am sure you know, that information has to be online, where it can be accessed. The JFKA era...not always so. Of course, no smartphones back then.
Maybe some new insights would pop up in the JFKA with AI.
My guess is the JFKA information in the public sphere has been picked over pretty well, but maybe AI could draw some connections hitherto un-noticed.
A more fruitful area for independent AI review might be the Jan. 6 event.
-
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:
I stand corrected. You get your news from from both left-wing and right-wing fake news sites, and very little from mainstream news.
(Not that everything is fake on fake news sites. But too much is.)
alt-l = left-wing fake news (Source)
alt-r = right-wing fake news (Source)
Matt Taibbi is a Democrat hating, MSM hating, political commentator.
I wouldn't call that series a CJR one so much as a Jeff Gerth one. Here is David Corn's answer to it:
Columbia Journalism Review’s Big Fail: It Published 24,000 Words on Russiagate and Missed the Point
The magazine’s attempted takedown of the media’s coverage bolsters Trump’s phony narrative.
I criticized your selection of news sources and you criticized my debating style. I take no offense... maybe you shouldn't either.
You have the last word.
I look forward to further comments from you, on a wide range of topics.
-
On 4/2/2024 at 8:39 PM, Tom Gram said:
I think an interesting point is that the doctors originally described the photo as confirming the accuracy of CE386 and 388. If the conspicuous “hole” in the “bottom” of the photo is the EOP entrance, the beveled notch on the top of the skull is a close match to the exit point in CE388.
The other explanations for the glaringly obvious oval shaped “hole” in the skull that looks freaking exactly like a bullet hole are seriously lacking, IMO. The official orientation puts the “hole” on the left temple, and I think most people try to pass it off as a spot of blood or perfectly oval piece of leftover scalp, or something like that.
Personally, I think Pat’s orientation is probably correct and the “bullet hole” is indeed the EOP entrance, but like everything else in this case it’s hard to be 100% certain.
Amen.
While I tend to concur with Pat Speer on most items, I think the real key to the JFKA is the timing of the shots that struck JFK and JBC.
With the Z-film, IMHO, we can detect JBC being struck at ~Z-295 and JFK at Z-313. Not enough time for both shots to have been fired by a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle.
This conforms with JBC's testimony, and also with the small round hole in the rear of JBC's assassination day shirt, that reveals the bullet that struck JBC was not tumbling--ergo, almost certainly a straight shot.
IMHO, the shot striking JBC at ~Z-295 also conforms with the "bang.....bang-bang" cadence heard by most ear-witnesses.
There seems to be reasonably intelligent people on all sides of the "which direction did the shots come from" argument.
Of course, within the JFKA community everyone is always incontrovertibly correct...but maybe the timing of the shots is a more fruitful inquiry to be made.
-
11 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
Pretty Damning. The FBI told them what to say, and they said it. This is the speaker of the House, and he never did anything about it.
I can't think of anyone in the entire DC establishment who "did anything" about it (the false JFKA establishment narrative) up to and including people running DC presently, who have actively suppressed JFK Records.
-
30 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
It's an assumption based on years of observing everything you say about Russiagate and the January 6 shenanigans, the latter of which was obviously instigated by Trump himself and his associates. That is to say, obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.
For you to miss all that, surely you must have gotten your information from Trump-friendly fake news sites. The sites that don't report anything negative about Trump.
You are incorrect in your assumptions.
I read a wide range of news outlets, from alt-l and alt-r to some standard outlets such as NYT (usually a couple days late, when I can get around the paywall).
There are very serious journalists, such as Matt Taibbi, who are skeptical and dubious about the standard narratives regarding Russiagate and Jan. 6.
Taibbi is not a Trump loyalist and neither am I.
You have been informed of the three-part Columbia Journalism Review series that explained the many weaknesses, even regrettable excesses and failures, in the media Russiagate story. The CJR, in general, is a liberal media publication, and not a Trump outlet.
That said, for the purposes of the EF-JFKA, being a Trump loyalist is certainly a valid political stance, as valid as being a Biden loyalist or an RFK2 loyalist.
As a moderator, you should take pains to create a collegial forum, in which different viewpoints---pro-Trump, pro-Biden or pro-RFK2---are respected, and none disparaged (excepting overt hate speech, personal insults, etc.).
I have not formed any opinions regarding your reading habits, and I respect whatever views you bring to EF-JFKA.
I do not disparage your commentary. We are just on different pages.
-
On 4/3/2024 at 5:47 PM, Gil Jesus said:
( BTW, tactics like this are not used in a normal criminal investigation )
Former House Speaker "Tip" O'Neill tells of a conversation he had with JFK aides Ken O'Donnell and Dave Powers about their testimony.
That's right. O'Donnell believed shots, or at least audible gunshot sounds, had been fired from the GK.
Beyond dispute, many earwitnesses placed audible gunshots as coming from the GK.
In addition, many witnesses (including law enforcement officers and veterans) smelled gunsmoke in DP, in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA.
Others placed gunshots as coming from the TSBD.
Of course, you can have audible gunshots coming from both locations, thus creating confusion. There may have been other gunshots, from weapons using silencers.
The WC was glib in condensing this welter of witness accounts into "LHO did it alone."
-
9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
And so, instead, you rely on Trump-friendly fake news sites for your information.
I do not understand why you would make assumptions, or make a disparaging comments about what news I read or watch.
In truth, I am bit of a bandysnatch, very eclectic in news consumption. If you are referring to Fox, I almost never watch Fox or any MSM news. The pace and content is far too tedious.
Perhaps I merely have a different point of view than you.
I do not make assumptions about your reading or viewing materials, nor do I disparage your views.
I am skeptical of modern-day academia and media. Leave it at that.
IMHO, I am on firm ground in that regard.
-
Among the many oddities of LHO, in addition to radio appearances (a rare thing back in 1962-3) was the strange fact that Kerry Thornley wrote a book on LHO---before the JFKA.
Thornley had served in the same unit at Atsugi as LHO, and then was seen in New Orleans with LHO in 1963, though Thornley denied it.
The WC found out about the unpublished Thornley manuscript, seized it, and then sent it to the National Archives, and it remained unpublished until 1991.
I wonder how many of us had someone write a book about us---when we were still in our 20s?
"What was Lee Harvey Oswald really like? In 1962 Marine Corp. Pvt. Kerry W. Thornley wrote a novel about a fellow Marine who defected to the USSR. Little did he know that his friend, Lee Harvey Oswald, would be accused of assassinating President John F. Kennedy. Through the fictional character Johnny Shellburn, The Idle Warriors gives rare insight into the mind of the man who allegedly committed the most infamous crime of the century."
-
1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:
Keven Hofeling wrote:
"Sure, Mueller and the Senate Committee made sensationalist allegations, but they never produced evidence that Paul Manafort or Konstantin Kilimnik ever had any contacts with Russian intelligence officers."
Sandy Larsen responded: The reason for that was because the Senate Committee's "investigation was hampered by Manafort and Kilimnik's use of 'sophisticated communications security practices' and Manafort's lies during SCO interviews on the topic."[175]
As noted in the report:
"Manafort's obfuscation of the truth surrounding Kilimnik was particularly damaging to the Committee's investigation because it effectively foreclosed direct insight into a series of interactions and communications which represent the single most direct tie between senior Trump Campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services."[175]
Keven Hofeling replied: First of all, there is no such thing as encrypted communications that are beyond the ability of the CIA and the NSA to decipher. Secondly, if there were communications with a Russian intelligence officer there would be at least a single solitary item of evidence that this was the case. But there isn't, and all the charges against Manafort and Kilimnik were instead predicated upon Manafort's pre-Russiagat lobbying activities in Ukraine.
"This is the United States, and under the constitutional and judicial principles of our system of adjudication every defendant, including Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik, is entitled to a presumption of innocence..."
Sandy Larsen responded: "Presumed innocence" is not the same thing as "innocence."
Keven Hofeling replied: Sandy, Manafort and Kilimnik WERE NOT EVEN CHARGED with any Russian collusion allegations. The exaggerated sensational allusions to Russian collusion were all a smokescreen. You've been conned. There isn't a single solitary piece of evidence of contacts with Russian intelligence officers.
"In the case of Manafort and Kilimnik, neither has ever been indicted for any crimes related to Russian collusion..."
Sandy Larsen responded: The FBI is sufficiently satisfied that Paul Manafort funneled information to Russian spies via Konstantin Kilimnik, an FBI fugitive.
Keven Hofeling replied: If so, then why didn't Mueller charge Manafort and Kilimnik with a single count of anything related to Russiagate? The policy of the FBI is not to comment on matters that are screened but not charged, so what do you think is so different about this Sandy? It's political, and improper under the American system of justice. It's political in exactly the same way that McCarthyism was political.
Sandy Larsen responded: The following April 5, 2021 New York Times article give details on how Paul Manafort was linked to Russian intelligence. The referenced (and linked) Treasury Department document gives the greatest details.
Biden Administration Says Russian Intelligence Obtained Trump Campaign Data
Following is an excerpt from the article:
The revelation, made public in a Treasury Department document announcing new sanctions against Russia, established for the first time that private meetings and communications between the [Trump] campaign officials, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and their business associate were a direct pipeline from the campaign to Russian spies at a time when the Kremlin was engaged in a covert effort to sabotage the 2016 presidential election.
Keven Hofeling replied: The Department of the Treasury has no evidence to support their sanctions. They've admitted there is nothing new to add to the Mueller Report and the Senate Intelligence Report on Collusion, and those two Reports did not produce any evidence either. What country do you think you are living in Sandy, Russia or China? Don't you think Manafort and Kilimnik are entitled to due process and equal protection under the law, or do you think we should just throw the American system of justice out the window for the sake of McCarthyist hysteria?
Here is the key excerpt from the New York Times article you are quoting, which acknowledges that there was no new evidence to support the Russian collusion allegation (a characteristic that is rampant among mainstream press coverage of these Russian collusion stories [characteristic of yellow journalism], and is also true of sources such as Wikipedia):
"...The Biden administration provided no supporting evidence to bolster the assessment that the Russian intelligence services obtained the polling data and campaign information. And the release shed no light on why Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates gave polling data to Mr. Kilimnik, although previous government reports have indicated that Mr. Manafort thought Trump campaign strategy information could be a valuable commodity for future business deals with Kremlin-connected oligarchs.
Having the polling data would have allowed Russia to better understand the Trump campaign strategy — including where the campaign was focusing resources — at a time when the Russian government was carrying out its own efforts to undermine Donald J. Trump’s opponent.
Mr. Gates said in a statement on Thursday that the Treasury Department had failed to provide any evidence to back up its claim, adding that “the polling data passed periodically to Kilimnik at Paul Manafort’s direction was simplistic and outdated, never in real time.”
“It was from both public and internal sources,” Mr. Gates said. “It was not massive binders full of demographics or deep research. It was ‘topline’ numbers and did not contain any strategic plans.”..."
'Biden Administration Says Russian Intelligence Obtained Trump Campaign Data'
A Treasury Department document shed more light on links between the campaign and Russian spies.By Mark Mazzetti and Michael S. Schmidt | New York Times | April 15, 2021 | https://web.archive.org/web/20211107015515/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/us/politics/russian-intelligence-trump-campaign.html
A Treasury Department document shed more light on links between the campaign and Russian spies.
NBC News asked the Treasury Department to disclose the evidence upon which the sanctions were based and were, as usual with government disclosures of evidence relating to the Russiagate hoax, given the runaround:
"....The officials did not disclose when or how the U.S. came into possession of the new intelligence about Kilimnik, including whether or not the information was developed during the Trump or Biden administrations. The officials did not identify the source or type of intelligence that had been developed...."
'U.S. has new intel that Manafort friend Kilimnik gave Trump campaign data to Russia'
By Tom Winter and Monica Alba | NBC News | April 16, 2021 | https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-has-new-intel-manafort-friend-kilimnik-gave-trump-n1264371
Paul Manafort was chair of the Trump campaign for part of 2016. Kilimnik had worked for him in Ukraine. U.S. officials say Kilimnik is a Russian spy.All the usual suspects immediately trumpeted the Treasury Report from the rooftops as if it were evidence, such as Rachel Maddow and Adam Schiff, as noted in the following video excerpt by Aaron Mate and Glenn Greenwald (who emphasize, highlight and underscore the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support the Russia collusion allegations against Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik):
Glenn Greenwald on why Russiagate disinformation never ends
The Grayzone | Apr 30, 2021 | https://youtu.be/6AXcjwX-JGA?si=P48JFo0WzKhR-y-6&t=861
On the same day that the claim of "Russian bounties" in Afghanistan collapsed, another US intelligence-sourced, evidence-free claim was treated as vindication for conspiracy theories about Trump-Russia collusion.
Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Maté discuss the predictable demise of the "Russian bounties"; the Biden administration's new evidence-free assertion that Paul Manafort associate Konstantin Kilimnik passed Trump campaign polling data to Russia; and why major US media outlets continue to parrot Russiagate disinformation no matter how many times the "bombshells" turn into duds.
Guest: Glenn Greenwald. Journalist whose latest book is "Securing Democracy: My Fight for Press Freedom and Justice in Bolsonaro’s Brazil."
Ultimately, the truth remains as follows, even after the Department of Treasury sanctions:
"...All of this highlights another inconvenient fact about Mueller’s case against Manafort: It is not about Russia, but about tax, bank, and lobbying violations stemming from his time in Ukraine. The Virginia judge who presided over Manafort’s first trial said the charges against him “manifestly don’t have anything to do with the [2016] campaign or with Russian collusion.” The collusion probe, the DC judge in Manafort’s second trial concurred, was “wholly irrelevant” to these charges...."
The Manafort Revelation Is Not a Smoking Gun
AARON MATÉ | THE NATION | JANUARY 11, 2019 | https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/manafort-no-smoking-gun-collusion/Proponents of the Trump-Russia collusion theory wildly overstate their case, again.
KE-
Keep on truckin'.
America needs dissenting views and narratives.
There was a time when, in general, when American intellectuals and academics tried to protect free speech, and encouraged dissent.
Now, the academics, and many allied in media, want to suppress dissent and speech. Unless a speaker is calling for the genocide of Jews, in which case the speech is protected, depending on context.
I don't trust government investigations (see the WC) and especially do not trust partisan government investigations.
I have lost faith in academia and media.
-
9 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:
Well folks, here we have an example of what happens when a presumptuous head shrinker moonlighting as a lay armchair lawyer makes a fool out of himself attempting to school bona fide lawyers...
Neiderhut: "As for the Manafort court document you posted, (above) you are, apparently, unaware that it was a preliminary court ruling by Judge Berman, from 2018. It details preliminary charges against Manafort."
Not even a third grader would have missed that there are multiple Court pleadings linked (See below) culminating in Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 final Order, as follows:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf
Even the February 2019 yellow journalism Washington Post article by Spencer Hsu didn't get that wrong. Is this starting to ring a bell in your head, Mr. Neiderhut? The February 2019 Washington Post article you are heralding is in its entirety about Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 final Order which you claimed above were just "preliminary charges against Manafort." Helloooooooo? Don't you even read the articles that you post as evidence??
And the idea that this piece of yellow journalism garbage of Spencer Hsu's in any way constitutes "evidence" is something my detailed review of it should have disposssed you of when I wrote it last Saturday, but noooo, Dr. head shrinker's head itself needs to be shrunk so desperately that he doesn't even read, much less understand, posts teeming with actual evidence and factual representations.
So here is that post from last Saturday again so we can see if you can improve upon your dismal performance as a lay armchair lawyer that you exhibited tonight....
__________
W. Neirdehut wrote:
"Be careful what you ask for. You're about to get a well-deserved trip to the Education Forum wood shed."
Do you have the slightest idea how ridiculous it appears for you to present this pitiful Washington Post article which makes completely unsubstantiated claims just so you can beat your silly Russophobic war drum? Especially when you allege doing so to be the equivalent of taking me to the "wood shed"?
Don't you have any "evidence" that I cannot so easily demonstrate to be completely without foundation as I have below with your piece of Washington Post yellow journalism?
I have insisted that you provide evidentiary support for your Russiagate hoax claims, to which you have provided this Washington Post nothing burger, which I suspect is about the best I am ever going to be able to get out of you.
The Ron Wyden letter you have been clamoring about for the last few days illustrates the problem with your article (which I am going to demonstrate below):
Senator Wyden, unlike you, has the good sense to have done his preliminary research. and has become aware that the Paul Manafort case suffers from a severe shortcoming, that being, a total absence of solid substantiating evidence. Thus, he has written to the Director of National Intelligence requesting declassification of redacted portions of the Senate Intelligence Report on Collusion. Senator Wyden knows, of course, what the redacted sections amount to, and therefore knows that they won't be redacted, because -- it is my prediction -- the redactions are exculpatory in nature and were redacted to save the Committee from further embarrassment. In any event, for your purposes, the redacted portions of the Senate Committee report do not constitute "evidence," and your allusions to the contrary are mere speculation.
The headline of your Washington Post article is "Federal judge finds Paul Manafort lied to Mueller probe about contacts with Russian aide," so we shall see if it delivers the content it promises.
Your Washington Post article begins with the following paragraph:
"Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about matters close to the heart of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, a federal judge ruled Wednesday."
It certainly sounds damning, but is it true?
In determining this, I want to expand the scope of the inquiry to include all of the Manafort charges and convictions, not only in the Court proceedings addressed in your article (Judge Amy Berman Jackson's U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia), but also for Judge T. S. Ellis III's U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Manafort's trial in the Eastern District of Virginia began on July 31, 2018. Manafort was charged with various financial crimes including tax evasion, bank fraud, and money laundering. There were 18 criminal charges including 5 falsifications of income tax returns, 4 failures to file foreign bank account reports, 4 counts of bank fraud, and 5 counts of bank fraud conspiracy. On August 21, 2018, the jury found Manafort guilty on 8 of the 18 felony counts, including five counts of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account. Judge Ellis declared a mistrial on the remaining 10 charges.
None of the Virginia charges or convictions had anything to do with Russiagate. To provide you with certainty about that I am providing you with Office of Special Counsel ("OSC") Robert Mueller's summary of the Virginia proceedings from page 5 and 6 of the "GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM" in the District of Colombia case, as follows:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.525.0_4.pdf
Likewise, none of the District of Colombia charges or convictions had anything to do with Russiagate. To provide you with certainty about that I am providing you with OSC Robert Mueller's summary of the D.C. proceedings from page 6-8 of the "GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM" in the District of Colombia case, as follows:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.525.0_4.pdf
Note that so far, Manafort has not been charged with or convicted of any offenses that have anything to do with Russiagate or Russian collusion, which brings us to the subject matter of your Washington Post article, the charges and convictions related to Paul Manafort's breach of his Cooperation Agreement with the OSC.
The OSC charged Paul Manafort with 5 charges related to his breach of the Cooperation Agreement. The most concise recitation of those 5 charges and proceedings associated therewith is found in Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 Order, which follows. As you can see, none of these 5 offenses have anything to do with Russiagate or Russian collusion, and I have included links to the pleadings of the OSC and Defendant Manafort upon which the Court based its judgment so that you can inquire further about the nature of each charge (but note that there are redactions which I believe were intended to make it difficult for the media to report that there was no Russia collusion involved, so you may need to review all of them to piece it together as I have):
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf
"...On November 26, 2018, the parties informed the Court in a joint status report [Dkt. # 455]
that it was the government’s position that the defendant had breached the plea agreement by making false statements to the FBI and Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) and that it was time to set a sentencing date. The defendant disputed the government’s characterization of the information he had provided and denied that he had breached the agreement, but he agreed that in light of the dispute, it was time to proceed to sentencing. Thereafter, the government was ordered to provide the Court with information concerning the alleged breach, a schedule was established for the defense to respond, and the following submissions were made a part of the record in the case:December 7, 2018 Government’s Submission in Support of its Breach Determination
[Dkt. # 461] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 460] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.460.0_3.pdfJanuary 8, 2019 Defendant’s Response to the Government’s Submission in Support
of its Breach Determination [Dkt. # 470] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 472] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.471.0_6.pdfJanuary 15, 2019 FBI Declaration in Support of the Government’s Breach
Determination with accompanying exhibits [Dkt # 477] (Sealed);
[Dkt. # 476] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.476.0_4.pdfJanuary 23, 2019 Defendant’s Reply to the Declaration [Dkt. # 481] (Sealed);
[Dkt. # 482] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.482.0_7.pdfThe Court held a sealed hearing on February 4, 2019, and the parties each filed post-hearing
submissions. See Def.’s Post-Hearing Mem. [Dkt. # 502] (Sealed), [Dkt. # 505] (Public);
Government’s Suppl. [Dkt. # 507] (Sealed). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.505.0.pdfIt is a matter of public record that the Office of Special Counsel has alleged that the
defendant made intentionally false statements to the FBI, the OSC, and/or the grand jury in connection with five matters: (i) a payment made by Firm A to a law firm to pay a debt owed to the law firm by defendant Manafort; (ii) co-defendant Konstantin Kilimnik’s role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy; (iii) the defendant’s interactions and communications with Kilimnik; (iv) another Department of Justice investigation; (iv) and the defendant’s contacts with the current administration after the election. The parties are agreed that it is the government’s burden to show that there has been a breach of the plea agreement, but to be relieved of its obligations under the agreement, it must simply demonstrate that its determination was made in good faith. Plea Agreement ¶ 13.With regard to the 5 charges brought against Manafort by the OSC, Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 final Order provided as follows:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf
Thus, concerning Mueller's Office of Special Counsel allegations that Manafort had breached the terms of his plea agreement by lying to the FBI and the OSC, of the 5 allegations, the Court found in favor of the government on 3, all of which were predicated upon Manafort's consulting work for the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine before Yanukovych's overthrow in 2014. The Court specifically found that Manafort had not intentionally made false statements concerning Kilimnick's role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy, and that Manafort had not intentionally made a false statement concerning his contacts with the Trump administration.
This means that the central claim of your Washington Post article -- that "Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about matters close to the heart of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, a federal judge ruled Wednesday." -- is absolutely and categorically false.
Your Washington Post article goes on to state the following:
"Manafort’s lies, the judge found, included “his interactions and communications with [Konstantin] Kilimnik,” a longtime aide whom the FBI assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District said Manafort also lied to the special counsel, the FBI and the grand jury about a payment from a company to a law firm — which he previously characterized as a loan repayment — and made false statements that were material to another Justice Department investigation whose focus has not been described in public filings in Manafort’s case."
Note how the author of the article inserted that Konstantin Kiliminak was "a longtime aide whom the FBI assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence" to imply that Manafort's non-Russiagate related convictions were in fact related to Russiagate.
Then, again, the article falsely insinuates that the OSC's prosecution of Mantafort involved Russiagate, when it in fact did not:
"In the deal with prosecutors, Manafort agreed to cooperate “fully and truthfully” with the government, seemingly giving investigators access to a witness who was at key events relevant to the Russia investigation — a Trump Tower meeting attended by a Russian lawyer, the Republican National Convention and a host of other behind-the-scenes discussions in the spring and summer of 2016."
And throughout the article are allegations that imply Russian involvement in the past associations between Kilimnik and Manafort which were not substantiated in the Virginia or D.C. cases, nor by the Mueller Report or the Senate Committee Report on Collusion:
"Mueller prosecutors have said Manafort’s lies about the frequency and substance of his contacts with Kilimnik go “very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating.”
They highlighted Manafort’s shifting account of an August 2016 meeting in New York City with Kilimnik — a longtime aide who also has been indicted in the Mueller investigation — in which the pair discussed a peace plan for Ukraine, while Manafort served as Trump’s campaign chairman.
A resolution of hostilities in Ukraine that leads to the lifting of sanctions against Russia is a top Kremlin foreign policy goal.
Mueller’s office also claims Manafort “intentionally provided false information” in debriefing sessions on several topics, including the extent and substance of his interactions with Kilimnik.
The pair met in December 2016, in January 2017 when Kilimnik was in Washington and again in February 2017, and as recently as the winter of 2018, according to previously released court documents.
Prosecutors also said that Manafort passed polling data related to the U.S. presidential campaign to Kilimnik during the campaign and that the two worked on a poll in Ukraine in 2018....
...Jackson’s brief order did not add to what was previously known about the Aug. 2, 2016, meeting at the Grand Havana Room, an upscale cigar bar in Manhattan, between Manafort and Kilimnik.
Prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said in a previous court hearing that the meeting included Rick Gates, who was Manafort’s top deputy on the Trump campaign and in Ukraine and has also pleaded guilty in the Mueller investigation, and that Gates said the men left separately using different exits than Kilimnik."
Mr. Neiderhut, your Washington Post article is yellow journalism in its purest form, and that you think it is solid evidence of Russiagate makes you and Russiagate appear all the more ridiculous.
KE--
As old guys say, "Keep on truckin.'"
I concur that Russiagate was "an elaborate hoax" to quote Bret Stephens, of the NYT.
IMHO, Jan. 6 was likely just a spontaneous scrum, although the possibility of state provocateurs is interesting, along with the inexplicable stories of Ray Epps, Mr Buffalo Horns and many others.
The important thing is to do what you do: bring a gimlet eye to official or partisan narratives.
People who present dissenting narratives from official or partisan propaganda are immensely valuable.
-
29 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:
“Shockingly Deranged.” Glenn Debunks Havana Syndrome Propaganda
Glenn Greenwald | Apr 2, 2024 | https://youtu.be/DJ8j5uzCb0U?si=tCnyEInvZP7JEGwfKH--
I respect those who challenge Deep State narratives, on the JFKA, Jan. 6, Watergate, Iran-gate, the C19 lab-leak and so on.
I wonder about this one. Whatever people are suffering from seems more serious than cricket noises or strong flu strains.
The Canadians in Havana reported similar symptoms.
I am keeping an open mind on this one.
The Russians can also play very dirty.
-
46 minutes ago, Ed LeDoux said:
To set him up... duh.
Or havent you been watching the "news"
EL-
Evidently, the intel state was lying to Trump on several matters, including whether US troops were on the ground in Syria. Trump thought he had removed all the boots on the ground, but no....
Whatever you think about Trump, when the Commander in Chief gives an order and it is flouted...then you have governance by Deep State.
What did the CIA or other agencies tell Trump regarding the JFKA? Likely not the truth.
-
3 hours ago, David Boylan said:
DB--thanks for posting. I enjoyed this segment of BOR. Lots of intelligent conversation.
I still wonder if the JFKA plot was hatched from on high many months in advance...or it just appears that way as a true investigation was never conducted.
This lack of insight into the nuts-and-bolts of the JFKA allows reasonable people to make many reasonable deductions...which may or may not be true.
I do suspect a great deal or witting or unwitting complicity after the JFKA, in the cover-up.
Before hand? Not sure. Any large organization, filled with or affiliated with thousands of agents or assets experienced in black ops or war, could have rogue elements. And then would be compelled to cover up the truth.
-
11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
To my recollection he didn't run tests with any delay beyond 2 1/2 hours to determine how long one could expect a positive result. He decided to test at 2 1/2 hours, and received a positive result.
From chapter 4f...
(Note: a subsequent study by Vincent Guinn would come to demonstrate that, under laboratory conditions, gunshot residue could be found on suspects as long as 24 hours after a shooting. A similar study by S.S. Krishnan published in 1974 would similarly claim "residue can remain for up to 17h during normal activity, but can be quickly removed by vigorous scrubbing with soap and water." A second study by Krishnan published in 1977 would support this, moreover, by listing a homicide where gunshot residue was found on the hands of a suspect 24 hours after the shooting. While Oswald's odyssey after the shooting was far from what one would expect to find in a laboratory, it was also far less taxing than 17h of normal activity. As a consequence there is nothing in his saga to make one think the residue on his hands, face, and clothes that would be apparent should he have fired a rifle, would have vanished. From May 31 to June 3, 2005, the FBI crime lab held a symposium on gunshot residue analysis. One of the issues discussed was time limits, a time after which the various crime labs present at the symposium would refuse to conduct a test for gunshot residue. According to a summary of this symposium, found on the FBI's website, "Many participants stated that an acceptable cutoff time is 4 to 6 hours after the shooting event, whereas some felt that up to 8 hours was appropriate. Still others were comfortable accepting lifts taken more than 12 hours after the shooting." It was also noted that the FBI's cut-off was 5 hours. A 2006 article on Scienceevidence.com similarly notes that in Saunders v the State of Texas, Aug. 12 2006, "The State’s expert...testified that the time guideline for gunshot residue tests is four hours because of the diminished likelihood of finding the elements necessary for a positive result. The expert testified that it was possible, however, for the test to produce a positive finding even after six or eight hours, but such findings are described as inconclusive. They are not referred to as 'unreliable,' however, because the problem is the likelihood of the evidence disappearing, not the presence of a false positive."
Also
The acceptance of gunshot residue tests of the face has, in fact, in some ways, surpassed even that of gunshot residue tests of the hands. The Elsevier Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, published 2000, notes: "In the case of a living shooter, the gunshot residue may be removed by washing the hands; it may also be rubbed off the hands onto clothing. Because of the possibility that gunshot residue may be deliberately removed or inadvertently lost from a shooter's hands other sources of gunshot residue should be considered. Gunshot residue may be deposited on the face and hair of the shooter or on his clothing. Gunshot residue deposited in these areas will generally be retained longer than gunshot residue of the hands." This, of course, feeds back into the question of why, 8 hours after the shooting, there was plentiful residue on Oswald's hands, but so little residue on his cheek?
PS--
Thanks for your comments and excellent website.
1. Oh, many reasons, as you know, for GSR (real or false) positives on the outside on LHO's hands. He was in a police car, he was in a police station, where GSR's were common. He handled print materials at the TSBD. There are any number of common items that can lead to false positives.
Perhaps LHO, fearing a trap, indeed fired at Tippit, and so had GSR on his hands.
2. For the light dose on LHO's face, perhaps he fired but once, and the TSBD was "exhaling." It was hotter inside the TSBD than outside. and LHO was on an upper floor, meaning the hot air would rise and out the windows.
Perhaps LHO washed his face at his rooming house, or the Texas Theater. Perhaps, as a CIA asset, LHO knew about and used a GSR-prophylactic while shooting (paper on the face). Perhaps LHO perspired heavily enough to wash away the GSRs. Eight hours had elapsed, which past the generally accepted time period for accuracy. Guinn's "2.5 hours" comment is curious.
You say LHO did not take a bathroom break inside the DPD. The guy had a strong bladder perhaps. If he took a bathroom break, would that have been recorded? One wonders why such a delay in applying the paraffin cast.
All in all, as I say, IMHO, the LHO paraffin test is not dispositive.
I am still a CT'er.
-
31 minutes ago, Bill Fite said:
another question, actually 2:
Is this the same Guinn ran the NAA tests comparing the chemical composition of the MC bullets and refused to report the statistical confidence in his conclusions which were later refuted with 95% confidence?
Where does the 2.5 hour estimate come from? experiments or guessing?
I don't know if the 2.5 hours is the upper limit or how it was arrived at, but Guinn seems to have been mistaken in the past.
BF--Thanks for your comments.
Yes, ironically, it was the very same Guinn.
Bullets: Yes, from my reading, Guinn failed to take into account that manufacturers of lead used in bullets do not precisely control for quality, and mix and match bullets from different production runs, and even within a bullet there are variations in elements.
Casts: I do not have a definitive answer why Guinn said that paraffin casts could be taken on a suspect up to 2.5 hours after a shooting, and be reliable. That strongly suggests Guinn tried testing after 3 hours, and found results unreliable--too many false negatives. It is quite a statement to make, when LHO's cast had been taken 8 hours after he possibly fired a rifle.
Maybe Pat Speer knows.
To be sure, Guinn, or anyone can make mistakes. I made one in 1983 and then another one in 1995, for example.
-
4 hours ago, Bill Fite said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but
- The NAA was positive for the casts from the hands, but could have been caused by handling printed materials among other items - books for example.
- So - don't most people wash their hands when using the toilet?
- Do most people wash their hands more thoroughly than their face?
- If LHO's washing was to remove GSRs why would he not concentrate on his hands?
I don't follow the assumption that he would wash the GSRs off his face but not his hands.
BF--
Thanks for your comments.
It turns out, there were many, many sources for false and real positives on LHO hands.
Even sitting in a police car, which LHO did, can result in false positive on the hands, or touching objects in a police station. This is because police officers, who often practice shooting, carry GSR around. It is even said that fingerprint inks can result in GSR false positives.
Or, LHO is used a paper barrier on his face in the TSBD, but when surprised by Tippit, then fired at Tippit.
Or, LHO washed his lightly exposed face, perhaps at the Texas Theater, with the palms of his hands, but did not thoroughly wash the backs of his hands.
However, the big takeaway is Guinn saying it "appears, he added, that these (NAA) results can be obtained even if the paraffin casts are made 2 1/2 hours after shooting the rifle."
Guinn seems to be saying 2.5 hours is the upper time limit for an accurate GSR NAA test.
But LHO casts were made more than eight hours after his purported shooting. In other words, the true GSR on LHO's face simply dissipated, perhaps through perspiration, or wiping his face with a cloth, or washing, before GST testing was done.
Later, after the JFKA, LHO touched the one or several of many items that can bring about a false positive on the hands.
As I say, IMHO, the GSR test is not dispositive. That does not mean I conclude LHO is guilty or innocent.
I would not convict or exonerate LHO on the GSR test.
But, each to his own.
-
Pat Speer has a formidable website devoted to the JFKA, recommended for all.
Chapter 4f is devoted to paraffin casts.
There is this curious paragraph:
"He (Guinn, running tests on paraffin casts) advised that there appears that triple firing of this rifle will leave unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts. It further appears that washing the casts with diphenylbenzidine does remove one of the characteristic elements (barium) but such washings do not remove all of the other characteristic element in powder residues (antimony). Further be advised that the tests to date indicate that powder residues are deposited on both cheeks of the shooter after the rifle is fired either one time or three times. It appears, he added, that these results can be obtained even if the paraffin casts are made 2 1/2 hours after shooting the rifle providing that the skin of the shooter has not been washed in the meantime.
---30---
That sure is a strange amount of time to mention, 2.5 hours. That's 150 minutes. Does this mean that even the neutron activation analysis (NAA) tests become non-dispositive after 150 minutes? Guinn sure seems to suggest as much. The phrase "even if" suggests nearing a time limit.
LHO had a paraffin cast made more than eight (8) hours after having possibly fired a rifle.
And, yes, again the mention that a simple washing the face would eliminate even traces of antimony, evidently the most resilient of GSRs.
LHO might have washed his face either in the rooming house he lived and visited, or the Texas Theater. It is said LHO did not take a bathroom break in custody before the paraffin test. But he was in custody for more than six hours before the tests were conducted. A very strong bladder perhaps. Would records be kept of bathroom breaks?
And, of course, LHO, if a CIA asset, may have been trained in spycraft, possibly to assassinate Castro or others, and may have used a prophylactic while shooting, such as paper taped to his face (plenty of that in the TSBD).
IMHO, the negative LHO paraffin cheek test is not dispositive.
-
7 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:
My comments below are in dark blue:
NOTE: Sensationalist claims and yellow journalism and the innuendo and speculation of the government DO NOT constitute evidence. You are wasting my time with your persistent failures to produce any real evidence of your Russian collusion claims...
U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Document on Paul Manafort's Work for Russia*
1) Manafort worked for years as a lobbyist and political consultant for Kremlin psy-ops in Ukraine, on behalf of Putin's Ukrainian puppet, Victor Yanukovych.
You have the same problem here as you have with everything else, Mr. Neiderhut. You have no evidence. The innuendo and speculation of the Senate Committee Report on Collusion is not evidence, it is mere speculation and innuendo.
As you can see in the following, the government never had any evidence of communications between Paul Manafort and Russian intelligence officials. Yellow journalism and the innuendo and speculation of members of the Senate Committee just doesn't make the cut. You are shooting blanks again.
On page 8 of Defendant Paul Manafort's pleading entitled "MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REQUIRE A HEARING REGARDING IMPROPER DISCLOSURES RELATING TO CONFIDENTIAL GRAND
JURY INFORMATION AND POTENTIALLY CLASSIFIED MATERIALS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on April 30, 2018, Manafort's attorneys represented to the Court, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that:"...Despite multiple discovery and Brady requests in this regard, the Special Counsel has not produced any materials to the defense-no tapes, notes, transcripts or any other material evidencing surveillance or intercepts of communications between Mr. Manafort and Russian intelligence officials, Russian government officials (or any other foreign officials). The Office of Special Counsel has advised that there are no materials responsive to Mr. Manafort's requests..." https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5001611-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-for-Hearing-04.html
The Mueller team's response marked a tacit admission that as of 2019, the FBI did not consider Kilimnik a Russian agent.
And in early 2017, FBI agent Peter Strzok interviewed the Steele dossier’s main source, now known to be Igor Danchenko. Danchenko said he passed on “rumors and speculation” and that he couldn’t back up the claims made in the dossier. Strzok said Steele “may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his subsource network.’’ Strzok then printed out a copy of a New York Times report that claimed there was evidence of communications between Paul Manafort and Russian agents and wrote in the margin, “we are unaware of any Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.” U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary republication of the Wall Street Journal Editorial "The FBI’s Dossier Deceit." https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/icymi-the-fbis-dossier-deceit
2) Manafort's long-term Russian military intelligence (GRU) associate was Konstantin Kilimnik.
There is no evidence that Konstantin Kilimnik was a Russian military intelligence officer or any other kind of Russian intelligence official. The Mueller Office of Special Counsel indicted Kilimnik in 2018 for obstruction of justice, unrelated to the 2016 election, but the case has never gone forward. When asked by investigative journalist Aaron Maté in 2020 if the FBI's assessment of Kilimnik has changed, a Department of Justice spokesman said that “the Mueller report speaks for itself,” suggesting that it has not adopted the Senate committee’s determination.
Again, the speculation and innuendo of the Senate Intelligence Report on Collusion does not constitute evidence. If you think there is such evidence in the Report, or anywhere else, then state exactly what you think that evidence consists of.
3) Manafort also worked with Putin's oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.
The Mueller Office of Special Counsel obtained convictions against Paul Manafort for illegal activities related to his lobbying business in Ukraine, but none of those convictions had anything to do with the Russian collusion allegations, for which Manafort was not even charged by the Office of Special Counsel. See above regarding the total absence of evidence of any communications between Paul Manafort and Russian intelligence officials.
4) Manafort secretly met with Kilimnik during the 2016 Trump Presidential campaign.
You evidently don't even know the actual details of the Senate Report, as at the bottom of volume iv, page 29, it states that Manafort and Kilimnik met secretly "in the United States and Spain in early 2017," not in 2016, meaning that your claim that the Senate Intelligence Report on Collusion found that "Manafort secretly met with Kilimnik during the 2016 Trump Presidential campaign" is patently false. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf
5) Manafort went to great lengths to conceal his 2016 contacts with Kilimnik from Mueller-- even committing perjury.
Paul Manafort was never charged with or convicted of "perjury." Manafort was convicted of three of the five counts of breaching the cooperation agreement that he had with the Office of Special Counsel. This does not constitute evidence that Manafort was in communication with Russian intelligence officials, or that Kilimnik was a Russian intelligence official. You need to present evidence of your claims in this regard, which neither Mueller's Office of Special Counsel or the Senate Select Intelligence Committee ever did. Sensationalist claims and yellow journalism, and the innuendo and speculation of the government DO NOT constitute evidence.
Mueller's Office of Special Counsel alleged that Manafort had breached the terms of his plea agreement by lying to the FBI and the OSC, and of five such allegations, the Court found in favor of the government on three, all of which were predicated upon Manafort's consulting work for the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine before Yanukovych's overthrow in 2014. The Court specifically found that Manafort had not intentionally made false statements concerning Kilimnik's role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy, and that Manafort had not intentionally made a false statement concerning his contacts with the Trump administration. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf
* report_volume5.pdf (senate.gov)
KE-
Keep on truckin.'
I think dissent from legacy-establishment media narrative is valuable, especially as we see so much mushing together of legacy media and the two major parties, and the intel state.
Remember: COVID-19 did not come from a lab, and Hunter Biden's laptop is a Russian disinformation story. The JFKA was carried out by LHO alone.
-
5 hours ago, Matt Allison said:
Well, this will be changing the discussion from here on out... holy sh*t
Matt-
This is interesting. I am keeping an open mind on this topic.
I am glad I am an unimportant person. It seems almost anyone could be targeted.
The use of Artificial Intelligence in JFKA research
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Those were the days.